With undermining, I'm hearing a lot of complaints about how we can't resist undermining being done in controlled systems by Solo or Group players. It carries with it a lot of the anti-Solo/Group sentiment.
I'm an Open player, but I see the value in Solo/Group play. If you've just started and you're running about in your Sidewinder, it would just suck to get interdicted by a wing of Anacondas. I can see the value in giving players the ability to opt-out of PvP.
However, there's another angle to consider as well: Solo and Group players can't counter undermining of their own control systems either.
So I've had an idea as to how this could be remedied. Other people may have had this idea. I did a quick search for 'undermine' but the results were too huge to sift through. Apologies in advance if I missed something obvious.
I'm for Lavingy, so let's take Calhuacan as an example.
Lets say the Feds quickly mobilize on the start of a new cycle, and start to agressively undermine Calhuacan. Because they're cowards, they do this in solo (I kid, I kid - they do it in solo because it's what I need for this example, just go with it).
Introduce a new class of faction-specific ships. 'Federal Underminer', 'Federal Espionage', whatever. As the x% of undermining of Calhuacan approaches 100%, the chances of this type of NPC ship spawning increases in the control system.
If Lavigny players interdict and murder these NPCs and turn in the bonds, we gain merits and the level of undermining for the system goes down.
The benefit of this system is that it would allow Open, Group and Solo players to all lend a hand in resisting one of their control systems being undermined.
Thoughts?
--------------------------------
As I wrote the above, I thought up a less interesting but (probably) easier to implement alternative.
Making Fortification/Undermining work a little bit more like Expansion/Undermining would remove the need for new mechanics and a new NPC type. All that would have to change would be how the fortification/undermining status is calculated at the end of the cycle.
Fortification is x%, undermining is y%.
Triggers continue to set the denominator when calculating the % complete.
x% and y% must reach at least 100% before either one has any kind of impact.
So the logic at end of cycle would go something like this:
Note that it may not have to be double. Some other metric could be used. Say, '100% greater than', or '1.5 times as large' or some other metric could be used instead. This metric would give the designers another lever to pull to adjust the game design to keep things engaging and challenging and fair for the player base.
Thoughts?
I'm an Open player, but I see the value in Solo/Group play. If you've just started and you're running about in your Sidewinder, it would just suck to get interdicted by a wing of Anacondas. I can see the value in giving players the ability to opt-out of PvP.
However, there's another angle to consider as well: Solo and Group players can't counter undermining of their own control systems either.
So I've had an idea as to how this could be remedied. Other people may have had this idea. I did a quick search for 'undermine' but the results were too huge to sift through. Apologies in advance if I missed something obvious.
I'm for Lavingy, so let's take Calhuacan as an example.
Lets say the Feds quickly mobilize on the start of a new cycle, and start to agressively undermine Calhuacan. Because they're cowards, they do this in solo (I kid, I kid - they do it in solo because it's what I need for this example, just go with it).
Introduce a new class of faction-specific ships. 'Federal Underminer', 'Federal Espionage', whatever. As the x% of undermining of Calhuacan approaches 100%, the chances of this type of NPC ship spawning increases in the control system.
If Lavigny players interdict and murder these NPCs and turn in the bonds, we gain merits and the level of undermining for the system goes down.
The benefit of this system is that it would allow Open, Group and Solo players to all lend a hand in resisting one of their control systems being undermined.
Thoughts?
--------------------------------
As I wrote the above, I thought up a less interesting but (probably) easier to implement alternative.
Making Fortification/Undermining work a little bit more like Expansion/Undermining would remove the need for new mechanics and a new NPC type. All that would have to change would be how the fortification/undermining status is calculated at the end of the cycle.
Fortification is x%, undermining is y%.
Triggers continue to set the denominator when calculating the % complete.
x% and y% must reach at least 100% before either one has any kind of impact.
So the logic at end of cycle would go something like this:
- If x% is 100% or greater and y% is less than 100%, the system is fortified. End.
- If y% is 100% or greater and x% is less than 100%, the system is undermined. End.
- If x% is double or more than y%, the system is fortified. End.
- If y% is double (or more) than x%, the system is undermined. End.
- If no other end has yet been reached, the system returns to a neutral state.
Note that it may not have to be double. Some other metric could be used. Say, '100% greater than', or '1.5 times as large' or some other metric could be used instead. This metric would give the designers another lever to pull to adjust the game design to keep things engaging and challenging and fair for the player base.
Thoughts?
Last edited:
